How Turkish Law No. 5651 protects individuals and businesses from unlawful online content, who can order removal and blocking, and what to do when your rights are violated
If you are a foreign national or a foreign business with a presence in Turkey, and content published online is harming your reputation, violating your privacy, or facilitating a crime, you have access to a set of legal tools under Turkish law that can result in that content being removed or access to it being blocked within hours. These mechanisms exist under Law No. 5651, the primary statute governing the regulation of online publications in Turkey.
At Bayraktar Attorneys, we regularly assist foreign nationals and businesses in navigating these processes, both as applicants seeking the removal or blocking of harmful content and as respondents challenging blocking orders. This guide sets out the legal framework, explains the different grounds for blocking and removal, identifies the authorities with the power to act, and explains what each procedure involves in practice.
- What Is Internet Access Blocking and Content Removal Under Turkish Law?
Turkish law draws a clear distinction between two separate but related legal mechanisms:
1.1. Access Blocking (Erişimin Engellenmesi)
Access blocking is the process by which internet users in Turkey are prevented or made significantly more difficult from accessing a website, a specific URL, or an IP address that hosts unlawful content. It does not remove the content from the internet globally: the content remains on its host server, but accessing it from within Turkey is restricted. Access blocking is achieved through technical methods applied by internet service providers operating in Turkey.
1.2. Content Removal (İçerik Kaldırma)
Content removal is the deletion or deindexing of specific content from the internet, rather than merely restricting access to it. Content removal can only be carried out by the content provider (the person or entity that published the content) or the hosting provider (the platform or server on which the content is stored). A judge hearing a content blocking application cannot order removal directly: only access blocking falls within judicial competence. Removal itself requires the cooperation of the platform or hosting provider.
Answer-first: If unlawful content about you is published online in Turkey, you can apply to the Peace Criminal Court Judge or to the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) to block access to it within 24 hours. The grounds include violation of personal rights, breach of privacy, criminal content, copyright infringement, the right to be forgotten, and public order. |
1.3. Legal Basis: Law No. 5651
The primary statute governing both mechanisms is Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Suppression of Crimes Committed Through Such Publications. The key provisions are:
- Article 8: access blocking and removal orders for catalogue crimes and their execution
- Article 8/A: emergency removal and blocking where delay would be dangerous (yasamsal tehlike)
- Article 9: removal and blocking for violations of personal rights (partially repealed by the Constitutional Court)
- Article 9/A: blocking for violations of the right to privacy (ozel hayatin gizliligi)
Important Important constitutional development: By its decision dated 11 October 2023 (Case No. 2020/76, Judgment No. 2023/172), the Constitutional Court of Turkey annulled certain provisions of Law No. 5651, including the entirety of Article 9 (which governed blocking for personal rights violations) and parts of Articles 8(4) and 8(11). The decision entered into force on 10 October 2024. This means the previous regime for personal rights violations has changed, and new applications must be assessed against the amended framework. If you have an existing application or order made under the former Article 9, you should seek legal advice on its current status. |
- Grounds for Access Blocking and Content Removal
Access blocking in Turkey can be ordered on the following grounds:
Ground | Legal Basis |
Criminal content (catalogue crimes, including incitement to suicide, child sexual abuse, facilitation of drug use, obscenity, prostitution, gambling) | Law No. 5651, Article 8 |
Emergency public safety (risk to life, national security, public order, prevention of crime, public health) | Law No. 5651, Article 8/A |
Violation of personal rights | Law No. 5651 (post-Constitutional Court reform framework) |
Violation of the right to privacy (ozel hayatin gizliligi) | Law No. 5651, Article 9/A |
Right to be forgotten | Law No. 5651, Article 9 / Law No. 6698 (KVKK) |
Copyright and intellectual property infringement | Law No. 5651 / Law No. 5846 (FSEK) |
Unfair competition | Law No. 5651 / Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) No. 6102 |
Public order considerations | Law No. 5651, Article 8 |
- Who Has the Authority to Order Blocking and Removal?
One of the more complex aspects of the Turkish system is that multiple different authorities have the power to order access blocking, depending on the ground and the urgency of the situation. Understanding which authority to approach is critical to using the system effectively.
3.1. Judicial Authorities
Peace Criminal Court Judge (Sulh Ceza Hakimi): The primary judicial authority for access blocking. In the investigation phase, the judge may order blocking for catalogue crimes. For personal rights violations, the judge is the competent authority to receive applications and issue orders. The judge must rule within 24 hours without a hearing.
Criminal Court (Mahkeme): In the prosecution phase, the court (rather than the investigating judge) may order blocking for the catalogue crimes listed in Article 8.
Public Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet Savcisi): In urgent situations (gecikmesinde sakinca bulunan haller) during the investigation phase, the Public Prosecutor may order blocking for Article 8 catalogue crimes without waiting for a judge. The order must be submitted to a judge for approval within 24 hours. If the judge does not approve within a further 24 hours, the measure is automatically lifted.
3.2. Administrative Authorities
Information and Communication Technologies Authority (Bilgi Teknolojileri ve Iletisim Kurumu, BTK): The primary administrative body responsible for internet regulation in Turkey. BTK can order blocking in its own right in specific circumstances under Articles 8 and 8/A, particularly where the content or hosting provider is based outside Turkey, and in relation to privacy violations under Article 9/A. BTK orders must be submitted to a Peace Criminal Court Judge for approval within 24 hours.
Presidency of the Republic: The Presidency may order blocking under Article 8/A where there are emergency grounds relating to national security, public order, or public health, and where delay would be dangerous. BTK must submit the order to a judge for approval within 24 hours.
Gambling and lottery bodies: Certain administrative bodies with jurisdiction over gambling (including Milli Piyango and Sportoto) may order blocking in relation to unlawful gambling content within their area of competence.
3.3. Private Entities
The Internet Access Providers Association (Erisim Saglayicilari Birligi, ESB) is a private law entity responsible for implementing access blocking orders made under provisions other than Article 8. It receives orders from the judiciary and BTK and forwards them to internet service providers for implementation.
The Turkish Jockey Club (Turkiye Jokey Kulubu) may also order blocking in relation to unlawful online content within its specific area of competence.
- Technical Methods of Access Blocking
Turkish law provides for access blocking through several technical methods. Understanding which method is used matters practically, because different methods have different impacts on the scope of what is blocked.
4.1. URL-Based Blocking
URL blocking restricts access only to the specific page or resource identified by the URL (the exact web address). It is the most targeted method and is generally considered the most proportionate. Since 2014, URL-based blocking has been the default method under Law No. 5651, replacing the earlier default of domain and IP blocking. The judge or authority must generally use URL blocking unless it is technically impossible or insufficient to prevent the violation.
4.2. Domain Name (DNS) Blocking
DNS blocking restricts access to an entire domain, not just a specific page. Because it blocks all content on the domain, including lawful content, DNS blocking has been criticized as disproportionate and inconsistent with the principle of individualization of sanctions. The Constitutional Court and academic commentary have identified this as a problem. DNS blocking is used where URL blocking is technically impossible, such as on HTTP (non-encrypted) sites where specific URL filtering cannot be implemented.
4.3. IP Address Blocking
IP blocking restricts access to all websites hosted on a particular IP address. Like DNS blocking, it is over-inclusive: an IP address may host many websites, and blocking the IP blocks all of them regardless of whether they contain unlawful content. IP blocking is similarly criticized as disproportionate. It was used in earlier high-profile cases (such as the blocking of Twitter) and remains available where URL blocking cannot achieve the required result.
A key principle under Turkish law is that access blocking should be as targeted as possible. The judge or authority must use URL-based blocking unless there is a specific technical reason why this will not work. A blanket block of an entire site or domain is only permissible where the judge specifically finds and states that URL blocking would not remedy the violation. |
- The Application Process: How to Request Blocking or Removal
The procedure for requesting blocking or removal differs depending on the ground you are relying on.
5.1. Personal Rights Violations
Where your personal rights have been violated by online content, you may:
- Contact the content provider directly and request removal using the notice-and-takedown mechanism. The content or hosting provider must respond within 24 hours.
- Apply directly to the Peace Criminal Court Judge for an access blocking order, without first contacting the content provider.
The judge rules within 24 hours without a hearing. The order is sent directly to the Internet Access Providers Association (ESB) for implementation. The Association must implement the order within 4 hours of receiving it.
5.2. Privacy Violations (Article 9/A)
Where your right to privacy has been violated, you may apply directly to BTK, setting out the full URL of the content, the nature of the violation, and your identity. BTK immediately forwards the request to ESB, which implements blocking within 4 hours.
The applicant must then submit the request to a Peace Criminal Court Judge within 24 hours of making the BTK application. The judge reviews the case and announces a decision within 48 hours. If the judge does not decide within 48 hours, the blocking order automatically lapses.
5.3. Catalogue Crimes (Article 8)
Applications for blocking based on catalogue crimes (such as obscenity, child sexual exploitation, incitement to suicide, or gambling) are initiated by public prosecutors or, in urgent cases, may be addressed to BTK. Judicial approval is required, and the process is integrated with the criminal investigation.
5.4. Emergency Situations (Article 8/A)
Where there is an imminent threat to life, national security, public order, or public health, and delay would be dangerous, the Presidency or BTK may issue an emergency blocking order without judicial pre-authorization. The order must be submitted to a Peace Criminal Court Judge within 24 hours, and the judge must confirm or cancel the order within 48 hours. If the judge does not respond within 48 hours, the order automatically lapses.
- Timelines: How Fast Do Blocking Orders Take Effect?
Stage | Time Limit |
Judge must rule on an access blocking application (personal rights) | Within 24 hours of application (without a hearing) |
ESB must implement a judicial blocking order | Immediately, within 4 hours of notification |
BTK must implement a judicial blocking order (Article 8) | Immediately, within 4 hours of notification |
Content/hosting provider must respond to a notice-and-takedown request | Within 24 hours of receipt |
BTK Article 9/A emergency blocking (privacy) | Immediately, within 4 hours |
Judicial review of an Article 9/A BTK order | Judge must decide within 48 hours; order lapses automatically if not confirmed |
Judicial review of an Article 8/A Presidential or BTK order | Submitted to judge within 24 hours; judge decides within 48 hours; lapses if not confirmed |
- Content Removal From Search Engines and Social Media Platforms
7.1. Search Engine Deindexing
Access blocking under Law No. 5651 restricts access to the content on its source website, but the URL may still appear in search engine results. Turkish law addresses this through a mechanism called non-association (iliskilendirilmeme), under which a court may order that a person's name not be associated with specific internet addresses in search engine results.
For search engine removal specifically, applications can also be made directly to Google, Yandex, Bing, and similar platforms through their own content reporting mechanisms. Google processes content removal requests through its legal removal tool; Bing has a similar process. However, where the platform does not comply voluntarily, the judicial and administrative mechanisms under Law No. 5651 remain available.
7.2. Social Media Platforms
For content on major social media platforms, including YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok, the applicant has two parallel routes:
- Applying through the platform's own internal reporting mechanism (available on all major platforms for violations of their community standards, privacy rights, and copyright)
- Applying to the Peace Criminal Court Judge or BTK under Law No. 5651 for an access blocking order, which, once made, is legally binding on internet service providers in Turkey and must be implemented within 4 hours
Where the blocking order has been obtained and the content remains accessible through search engines, the non-association mechanism can be used to request that the Peace Criminal Court Judge order ESB to notify the relevant search engines.
- The Right to Be Forgotten in Turkey
The right to be forgotten is the right of individuals to request that information about them, which is no longer relevant or serves no current public interest, be removed from the internet or deindexed from search engines. Although not codified in a single provision, it operates in Turkey through the combined application of Law No. 5651 and the Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 6698, KVKK).
The Turkish Court of Cassation has confirmed, in its decisions of the 19th Criminal Chamber, that courts may order blocking or deindexing of content under the right to be forgotten where the following factors, assessed cumulatively, weigh in favor of removal:
- The content of the publication
- The time elapsed since publication
- Whether the content has become stale and lost its currency
- Whether it constitutes historical data
- Its contribution to the public interest
- Whether the subject is a public figure or politician
- The subject matter of the report and whether it reflects facts or value judgments
- The continuing public interest in the data
From Our Practice The right to be forgotten is not absolute and operates on a case-by-case basis. Turkish courts balance the right to be forgotten against freedom of expression and press freedom. In our experience, applications are more likely to succeed where the content is clearly outdated, serves no current public interest, and was not initially published for reasons of legitimate public accountability. Applications based on legitimate journalism about matters of ongoing public concern are much harder to succeed with. |
- Objecting to an Access Blocking Order
Where an access blocking order has been made against content you have published or hosted, or against a website you operate, you have the right to challenge the order. The procedure depends on whether the order was made by a judicial or administrative authority.
9.1. Challenging a Judicial Order
An access blocking order made by a Peace Criminal Court Judge can be challenged by filing an objection (itiraz) under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 5271). The objection must be filed within 7 days of the party becoming aware of the order.
Those with standing to object include:
- The Public Prosecutor
- The publisher of the blocked content
- Any person who has joined or could join the proceedings as a complainant
The judge whose order is challenged reviews the objection and, if they find it valid, corrects their order. If they do not find it valid, the objection is sent to the next authority in the judicial hierarchy, which must decide within 3 days. As a general rule, the objection does not automatically suspend the blocking order. However, the judge or reviewing authority may stay implementation pending the outcome of the challenge.
9.2. Challenging an Administrative Order
Where the blocking order was made by BTK or the Presidency under Article 8/A, the order is subject to review by the Peace Criminal Court Judge within 24-48 hours in any event. If the judge does not confirm the order, it lapses automatically.
Administrative blocking orders may also be challenged before the administrative courts by way of an annulment action (iptal davasi). This is the route available where the judicial review mechanism has already confirmed the order and further challenge is sought.
- Freedom of Expression: The Constitutional Limits on Blocking
Any analysis of access blocking and content removal in Turkey must account for the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. Article 26 of the Turkish Constitution and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights both protect the right to freedom of expression. Blocking orders that go beyond what is necessary to protect a legitimate competing right may be challenged on constitutional grounds.
The Turkish Court of Cassation has confirmed that, in assessing whether to grant a blocking order for personal rights violations, the following factors derived from ECtHR case law (particularly Axel Springer v Germany) must be considered:
- Whether the expression contributes to a debate of general public interest
- The public profile of the person referred to in the expression and the subject matter of the report
- The prior conduct of the person named
- The method used to obtain the information
- The truth, content, form, and impact of the expression
- The type, amount, and proportionality of any sanction imposed
Where a blocking order is sought in relation to criticism of a public official's professional conduct, or in relation to reviews, complaints, or comments about a publicly offered service, the courts are less likely to grant the order, as the expression falls within the protected scope of freedom of expression and press freedom.
This balance is illustrated by the Court of Cassation's decision in 19th Criminal Chamber, 2019/30287: the court refused to order blocking of a forum website on which former patients of a doctor had shared critical reviews of their experiences, holding that the reviews fell within the permissible scope of freedom of expression and that ordering a blanket block of the forum would be disproportionate.
- Electronic Preservation of Evidence (e-Tespit)
Before applying for an access blocking or content removal order, it is essential to preserve evidence of the content as it appeared at the time of the violation. Online content can be edited or deleted, and once it has been removed you may lose the ability to prove what was published.
Turkey's Notarial Association (Turkiye Noterler Birligi) offers an electronic evidence preservation service (e-Tespit), which has been available since 1 March 2016. Through this service, a notary records and certifies the content of a specific URL at a given point in time, providing a notarially authenticated record that can be used as evidence in legal proceedings.
The applicant provides the URL to the Notarial Association's system, receives a reference number, and then attends a notary (including outside working hours through an on-duty notary service) to have the online content officially recorded. The e-Tespit record constitutes notarially certified evidence of what was published at that URL at the time of the certification.
Important We strongly recommend obtaining an e-Tespit certificate before filing any application for content removal or access blocking. If the content is deleted before your application is heard, having an authenticated record of what was published is essential for establishing that the violation occurred and for supporting your claim for damages. |
Frequently Asked Questions About Access Blocking and Content Removal in Turkey
- How quickly can access to unlawful content be blocked in Turkey?
- How quickly can access to unlawful content be blocked in Turkey?
Very quickly. A Peace Criminal Court Judge must rule on a blocking application within 24 hours without a hearing. Once the order is made, the Internet Access Providers Association and internet service providers in Turkey must implement the block within 4 hours of receiving the order. For privacy-related applications made directly to BTK, blocking is implemented within 4 hours of the BTK request, pending judicial confirmation.
- Can I have content removed from Google search results in Turkey?
- Can I have content removed from Google search results in Turkey?
Yes, through two routes. First, you can apply directly to Google through its legal removal tool for deindexing of specific URLs. Second, where a Turkish court has ordered access blocking or content removal, you can request that the court additionally order that your name not be associated with the relevant URLs in search engine results (the non-association mechanism). The court order is then notified to the relevant search engines.
- I am a foreign national living outside Turkey. Can I apply for access blocking of content in Turkey?
- I am a foreign national living outside Turkey. Can I apply for access blocking of content in Turkey?
Yes. Law No. 5651 does not restrict the right to apply for blocking orders to Turkish residents. Any person whose rights have been violated by online content accessible in Turkey may apply to a Turkish Peace Criminal Court Judge or to BTK, regardless of their nationality or place of residence. However, you will need to appear before or correspond with the Turkish court or authority, and we recommend instructing a Turkish lawyer to act on your behalf.
- What is the difference between blocking access to content and removing it?
- What is the difference between blocking access to content and removing it?
Access blocking restricts users in Turkey from accessing the content but does not delete it from its source. The content remains online and may be accessible from outside Turkey or through VPNs. Content removal is the actual deletion or deindexing of the content from the host platform. Only the content or hosting provider can remove content; a court can order access blocking but cannot itself delete content from an external platform.
- Can I block access to a foreign website from Turkey?
- Can I block access to a foreign website from Turkey?
Yes. Turkish law applies to content accessible from within Turkey regardless of where the website is hosted or where the content provider is located. BTK has the authority under Article 8 to order blocking of foreign-hosted content directly (without first requiring judicial authorization) where the content provider or hosting provider is based outside Turkey.
- Can a blocking order be challenged?
- Can a blocking order be challenged?
Yes. Judicial blocking orders can be challenged by filing an objection within 7 days of becoming aware of the order. The objection is reviewed by the judge who made the order and, if not resolved there, by the next judicial authority. Administrative orders made by BTK or the Presidency under Article 8/A are in any event reviewed by a Peace Criminal Court Judge within 24-48 hours and automatically lapse if not confirmed. Further challenge before the administrative courts is also available.
- Does a blocking order mean the content violates my rights?
- Does a blocking order mean the content violates my rights?
Not necessarily. A blocking order is a provisional measure, not a final determination of the merits. The order can be made quickly, sometimes before the full facts are established, as an interim protective measure. The merits of the underlying dispute, including whether the content is actually unlawful, may need to be determined in separate proceedings. The existence of a blocking order is not the same as a court finding that the content is defamatory or unlawful.
Conclusion
Turkey's framework for access blocking and content removal under Law No. 5651 is one of the most developed and rapidly operational systems in the region. Where your rights have been violated by online content, the system can produce tangible results, including court-ordered access blocking, within 24 to 48 hours of an application being filed.
At the same time, the system must be used carefully. Access blocking orders interact with the constitutional protection of freedom of expression, and Turkish courts will weigh these competing rights. Where content reflects legitimate criticism, journalistic reporting, or protected speech, blocking orders will be harder to obtain and easier to challenge.
At Bayraktar Attorneys, we assist foreign nationals and businesses in both directions: pursuing access blocking and content removal where rights have been genuinely violated, and challenging orders where content has been improperly targeted. If you have a matter involving online content and your rights in Turkey, please contact us for a confidential assessment.
